[brianshark]

Well we have 5 controls so if pard wants to defend 2♠x, I'm not complaining.

Weak players are weak because they lack bidding judgement. They are taught to open with 12 points and they follow this blindly. They lack the judgement to open hands less than 12 points might be good enough to open, and they lack the judgement to pass 12 counts that might not be good enough to open.

I don't understand people who are claiming that it's the opps hand. The average HCP for a hand is 10, so we are already above average. And the person who should have the soundest opening is 2nd seat. So if there is an 11 or 12 count around the table, it is more likely to be partner than LHO, who is in turn more likely than RHO. The odds seriously favour us having 21-22 pts. The only real risk is a ♠ partial for them, but even if they have the ♠s, they won't find it easy to find them over a 1N opening.

[PassedOut]

brianshark, on Feb 19 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

Well we have 5 controls so if pard wants to defend 2♠x, I'm not complaining.

I play negative doubles from both sides after a weak notrump, so a 2♠X contract means that partner chose to pass my double.

The one sure thing about this hand is that the opponents will not play a peaceful 2♠ at matchpoints. If they find spades, someone will be playing on the 3-level or they will be playing doubled.

[gwnn]

PassedOut, on Feb 19 2008, 04:04 PM, said:

brianshark, on Feb 19 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

Well we have 5 controls so if pard wants to defend 2♠x, I'm not complaining.

I play negative doubles from both sides after a weak notrump, so a 2♠X contract means that partner chose to pass my double.

The one sure thing about this hand is that the opponents will not play a peaceful 2♠ at matchpoints. If they find spades, someone will be playing on the 3-level or they will be playing doubled.

2♠x may come after

2♣* both majors
X willing to penalize at least one
2♠
p-p-X penalty

[PassedOut]

gwnn, on Feb 19 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

2♠x may come after

2♣* both majors
X willing to penalize at least one
2♠
p-p-X penalty

True, I was oversimplifying (as usual). There might be some other possibilities also, depending upon what agreements the weak pair facing us play.

Still, I expect a good number of pairs our way (if not most of them) to go plus, so I'm not going to accept less than that without a fight.

[bill1157]

brianshark, on Feb 18 2008, 04:51 PM, said:

Weak players open 12 counts. Less weak but not very good players are, if anything, more aggresive and will open poor but shapely 11 counts that stronger players may pass.

Anyway, that's all beside the point... you beat weak players by not trying to second guess if they have made mistakes, it's by playing your solid game and not making any mistakes of your own. In my opinion, you rate to have the balance of points regardless of the type of opponents. 1N rates to make... and it's possible but unlikely opponents have a suit partial AND can find it after a 1N opening. Therefore I believe bidding is correct.

Poor but shapely 11 count sounds like "good 11 count" to me. Good players may be able to pass with decent 12 counts because the field they play in will lose to them anyway. I have seen some great players open very weak hands in good competition (i.e. Bermuda Bowl)
For the less experienced players opening on the decent 12 count is essential if they are to be competitive with the better players.

[brianshark]

Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJ is a poor shapely 11 count. xx AQJxxx x Axx is a nice shapely 11 count. There's a difference.

And good players who pass hands that should be opened risk missing the partial and no amount of brilliant defence will avoid the bottom they are going to get. Good players who play worse bridge because they are playing against bad players become less-good players themselves.

[Trinidad]

I fully agree with Justin. I hate passing deals out when playing against palooka's. If I pass it out, I expect an average (may be slightly higher because one of the palooka's may have evaluated the hand wrong). If the hand is played, I expect a good result. Just how good depends on how good I am and how poor the palooka's are (+ the usual factors like luck, etc).

If you want to score, it is worth taking a small risk to force the board to be played. This would be bad bridge against "normal" opponents, and very bad bridge against better opponents, but it is good bridge against palooka's. This is particularly true if you have a way to warn partner that you have less than he would expect (e.g. if you can pass his natural response which normally would be practically forcing). After all, if you can warn partner, you are reducing the risk.

On this particular hand, I would probably open 1NT (12-14) against "the worst pair in the room", certainly if I would be playing with Gerben.

Rik

[han]

Trinidad, on Feb 20 2008, 09:57 AM, said:

On this particular hand, I would probably open 1NT (12-14) against "the worst pair in the room", certainly if I would be playing with Gerben.

Since he will be dummy?

[Gerben42]

I'm already a dummy anyway. If partner is declarer, that would make me double dummy.

[helene_t]

I think Trinidad was reffering to ur superior notrump structure, Gerben.

[Codo]

Gerben42, on Feb 21 2008, 12:41 AM, said:

I'm already a dummy anyway. If partner is declarer, that would make me double dummy.

...at least we now know who was the dummiest player at the table.

What did your opponent do at the table with the 11 HCP hand against you?

[brianshark]

Jlall, on Feb 20 2008, 02:11 PM, said:

There has been so much wrong/inaccurate stuff posted on this thread, but this one really stands out:

Quote

Good players who play worse bridge because they are playing against bad players become less-good players themselves.

If you think that "good bridge" is some kind of constant thing that does not change based on the level of your opponents you are really wrong. To me good bridge is making the decisions that rate to get you the best possible result every time you have a choice to make. Which actions rate to get you the best possible result are definitely dependant on a lot of things that go beyond form of scoring and vulnerability.

This must be obviously evident for something like a 4th seat bidding problem where opening is a statement that "we rate to go plus on this board." Surely the skill level of your opponents and their ability to guage a competitive auction and their ability to defend or declare correctly relative to your ability must be factored into whether you rate to go plus.

Statements such as: "The opps are so bad that this game is now greater than 50% (or whatever your cut-off is) therefore we should bid it" <- I agree

Statements such as: "Even though bidding game is the percentage call, our opps at the other table are so bad, they probably won't find it therefore we don't need to risk bidding it" <- I disagree

[bill1157]

"Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJ is a poor shapely 11 count. xx AQJxxx x Axx is a nice shapely 11 count. There's a difference."

are you saying you would not open the first hand?

[TimG]

brianshark, on Feb 20 2008, 04:28 AM, said:

Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJ is a poor shapely 11 count. xx AQJxxx x Axx is a nice shapely 11 count. There's a difference.

Both hands have only 12 cards.

[brianshark]

I didn't think you did. I was just clarifying where I stood. I felt I went a bit astray earlier.

Regarding the example hands, they originally had 11 cards each! But I thought I addedd a third club and a third spade to each.

I would open xxx AQJxxx x Axx and I would probably pass Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJx. I might open the second but for sure the first hand is better, and I can think of much more extreme examples.

[bill1157]

brianshark, on Feb 20 2008, 06:06 PM, said:

I didn't think you did. I was just clarifying where I stood. I felt I went a bit astray earlier.

Regarding the example hands, they originally had 11 cards each! But I thought I addedd a third club and a third spade to each.

I would open xxx AQJxxx x Axx and I would probably pass Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJx. I might open the second but for sure the first hand is better, and I can think of much more extreme examples.

"I would open xxx AQJxxx x Axx and I would probably pass Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJx. I might open the second but for sure the first hand is better, and I can think of much more extreme examples."

Yes an extreme example would probably be the hand that originated the whole discussion. If that can be opened 4th seat, i cant see the problem with opening Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJx in any other seat!